4 ms·

>"The great strides we're making in access to food and clean water and medical care won't stop unchecked global warming from devastating human civilization. It'

by nonbel 8y ago

>"The great strides we're making in access to food and clean water and medical care won't stop unchecked global warming from devastating human civilization. It's not just a matter of rising sea levels; if things continue apace, large parts of the equator will be too hot for humans to survive by the end of this century, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees will be seeking sanctuary somewhere, anywhere." Do you realize you are just like one of the crazy dudes yelling about doomsday on the corner? Just because you are online doesn't make it any more convincing, actually it makes it less convincing. I assume you are repeating similar stuff over and over, so you should at least have some sources for each claim you include in these posts. EDIT: And I don't mean this in a non-constructive way. There are a few topics where I have found myself making the same arguments over and over online (measles, gene "editing", NHST) and so have saved a list of citations and quotes from them that resulted from my research into the topic. It can all be done quite informally and is not at all a hassle.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
All right! https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-change-uninhabitable/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-chang... https://qz.com/india/1049730/heatwaves-could-turn-parts-of-india-and-pakistan-uninhabitable-by-the-end-of-the-century/ https://qz.com/india/1049730/heatwaves-could-turn-parts-of-i... https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/i... I'm curious why you felt that such a hostile response was justified. You could have just said "I'd like to see a source for that" and I would happily have provided. Did you really think I was just making up lies, and would slink away in defeat when challenged?
- nonbel 8y ago
  > "All right!" It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. > "I'm curious why you felt that such a hostile response was justified. You could have just said "I'd like to see a source for that" and I would happily have provided." There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. Making those posts without sources is worse than useless if your goal is really to convince people you are correct. > "Did you really think I was just making up lies, and would slink away in defeat when challenged?" No, I wanted to see where you were getting these ideas. Now I know... I can tell right away that none of those sources are going to contain enough info to really tell how those conclusions were drawn but nevertheless, can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? I mean if you really want to convince people, don't give them secondary sources and make them dig into the primary sources. Go get the direct quotes from the research literature or researchers involved yourself. BTW, I have never had the experience of journalists being able to accurately describe anything I am an expert about.
  - albedoa 8y ago
    It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. It is exceptional to expect or require sources for well-known ideas to be attached to every comment that alludes to or evokes them. None of us needed sources to understand the point that the OP was making. can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each? I'm baffled that you have made it this guy's job to hunt down and feed you primary sources because he wrote a comment that assumes some baseline knowledge.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each?" I said, "at least" have sources. That is like the bare minimum. Here is a post I made earlier today that meets my standards: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 You can find many posts in my history that have a similar format.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    > There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. You said I was just like a crazy person ranting on a street corner. If you didn't intend to sound hostile, you did a very poor job of communicating.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      People have told me similar about other topics and I learned from it. I interpreted it as a fact about how just claiming something is wrong appears to some people. The doomsday aspect definately accentuates it though.
- lifeformed 8y ago
  The facts are a keystroke away, plain as day, shouted for years upon deaf ears. People who ask you to Google for them these answers aren't arguing in good faith. There's nothing left to debate, the details were figured out a long time ago. At this point, I'm convinced that there are zero climate skeptics who really want to find answers; it's all willful ignorance or malice. It's comically stupid how the obvious truth is met with so much resistance. The desire to preserve the status quo is the strongest force in civilization. On one side you have 99.9% of scientists saying that we're screwed. On the other side you have 0.1% of scientists paid by oil megacorp lobbyists saying it's fine. Hmm... what should one conclude? On one hand you have politicians and the ultrarich saying everything is okay. on the other hand, the same politicians and rich people are quietly buying safe houses and building seawalls and preparing for doomsday. Oh and the military is training for and developing technologies to deal with the new scenarios. Hmm... what could it mean? We're boiling alive fast enough that we can't handle it, but slow enough that we won't do anything about it. The last two people on earth are going to die arguing about why it's so hot.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    It isn't about facts or "truth" or "99.9% of scientists saying" we are screwed. That isn't how science/engineering works, its how politics works. Perhaps that is why there is difficulty communicating across the gap. Do you have a source for that last one by the way (99.9 % of scientists saying we are screwed)?
    - lifeformed 8y ago
      Info: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/027046761770707... And the paper itself: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl...
      - nonbel 8y ago
        Can you quote the part of the paper where you think it claims "99.9% of scientists [are] saying that we're screwed." I just looked and didn't see it.
DennisP 8y ago
It's not hard to find sources. For example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-countries-that-will-be-so-hot-by-2100-humans-won-t-be-able-to-go-outside-a6710121.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-countries-tha... http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-... A great book on the effects of climate change is Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, who read 3000 peer-reviewed papers on the effects of climate change and summarized them, one chapter per degree, with extensive references. One reason we know what to expect is that the Earth has gone through warming cycles before and we can see what happened in the geological evidence. A good presentation of that evidence is in Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren.
- nonbel 8y ago
  I mean something like this. It seems like just one person needs to do it, then it could be boilerplate since I see similar posts all over the place: > "The great strides we're making in access to food and clean water and medical care" -- What evidence is there for great strides being made? -- Regarding medical "care", there is an implication that care is a good thing. How well is this "care" translating to health, rather than putting people on more pills and causing an obesity crisis? > "[Improved access to food, clean water, and medical care] won't stop unchecked global warming from devastating human civilization. -- Why couldn't it? I have often heard the argument that improved standard of living leads to lower birthrates. > "It's not just a matter of rising sea levels" -- What evidence is there for rising sea levels? I have heard they were rising before humans started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. > "if things continue apace, -- Why should we expect climate change to continue apace? Looking at the vostok ice core data it looks like there is some negative feedback that leads to a glacial period once it gets too hot. In fact it looks like we are due for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Pe... -- There is also the grand solar minimum we may be due for as well... > "large parts of the equator will be too hot for humans to survive" -- Needs source: If humans can find ways to survive in antarctica, submarines, and outer space I doubt this true. > "By the end of this century, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees will be seeking sanctuary somewhere, anywhere." -- Why, exactly? Are they incapable of planning ahead or building air conditioned structures? Does this assume some sort of energy crisis?

by nonbel 8y ago

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

All right! https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-change-uninhabitable/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-climate-chang... https://qz.com/india/1049730/heatwaves-could-turn-parts-of-india-and-pakistan-uninhabitable-by-the-end-of-the-century/ https://qz.com/india/1049730/heatwaves-could-turn-parts-of-i... https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/i... I'm curious why you felt that such a hostile response was justified. You could have just said "I'd like to see a source for that" and I would happily have provided. Did you really think I was just making up lies, and would slink away in defeat when challenged?

nonbel 8y ago
> "All right!" It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. > "I'm curious why you felt that such a hostile response was justified. You could have just said "I'd like to see a source for that" and I would happily have provided." There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. Making those posts without sources is worse than useless if your goal is really to convince people you are correct. > "Did you really think I was just making up lies, and would slink away in defeat when challenged?" No, I wanted to see where you were getting these ideas. Now I know... I can tell right away that none of those sources are going to contain enough info to really tell how those conclusions were drawn but nevertheless, can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? I mean if you really want to convince people, don't give them secondary sources and make them dig into the primary sources. Go get the direct quotes from the research literature or researchers involved yourself. BTW, I have never had the experience of journalists being able to accurately describe anything I am an expert about.
- albedoa 8y ago
  It isnt exceptional to ask for a source, no need for sarcasm. It is exceptional to expect or require sources for well-known ideas to be attached to every comment that alludes to or evokes them. None of us needed sources to understand the point that the OP was making. can you extract the most relevant quotes from each and attach to your claims? The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each? I'm baffled that you have made it this guy's job to hunt down and feed you primary sources because he wrote a comment that assumes some baseline knowledge.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"The trend here is that it will not be good enough for you. You asked for sources and got them. Now you are expanding your request. What's next in your list of demands after he extracts the most relevant quotes from each?" I said, "at least" have sources. That is like the bare minimum. Here is a post I made earlier today that meets my standards: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18522479 You can find many posts in my history that have a similar format.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > There was nothing hostile about it, just facts. You said I was just like a crazy person ranting on a street corner. If you didn't intend to sound hostile, you did a very poor job of communicating.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    People have told me similar about other topics and I learned from it. I interpreted it as a fact about how just claiming something is wrong appears to some people. The doomsday aspect definately accentuates it though.
lifeformed 8y ago
The facts are a keystroke away, plain as day, shouted for years upon deaf ears. People who ask you to Google for them these answers aren't arguing in good faith. There's nothing left to debate, the details were figured out a long time ago. At this point, I'm convinced that there are zero climate skeptics who really want to find answers; it's all willful ignorance or malice. It's comically stupid how the obvious truth is met with so much resistance. The desire to preserve the status quo is the strongest force in civilization. On one side you have 99.9% of scientists saying that we're screwed. On the other side you have 0.1% of scientists paid by oil megacorp lobbyists saying it's fine. Hmm... what should one conclude? On one hand you have politicians and the ultrarich saying everything is okay. on the other hand, the same politicians and rich people are quietly buying safe houses and building seawalls and preparing for doomsday. Oh and the military is training for and developing technologies to deal with the new scenarios. Hmm... what could it mean? We're boiling alive fast enough that we can't handle it, but slow enough that we won't do anything about it. The last two people on earth are going to die arguing about why it's so hot.
- nonbel 8y ago
  It isn't about facts or "truth" or "99.9% of scientists saying" we are screwed. That isn't how science/engineering works, its how politics works. Perhaps that is why there is difficulty communicating across the gap. Do you have a source for that last one by the way (99.9 % of scientists saying we are screwed)?
  - lifeformed 8y ago
    Info: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/027046761770707... And the paper itself: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0roqfsrx4tz4nd/Powell-2015.pdf?dl...
    - nonbel 8y ago
      Can you quote the part of the paper where you think it claims "99.9% of scientists [are] saying that we're screwed." I just looked and didn't see it.

DennisP 8y ago

It's not hard to find sources. For example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-countries-that-will-be-so-hot-by-2100-humans-won-t-be-able-to-go-outside-a6710121.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-countries-tha... http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-... A great book on the effects of climate change is Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, who read 3000 peer-reviewed papers on the effects of climate change and summarized them, one chapter per degree, with extensive references. One reason we know what to expect is that the Earth has gone through warming cycles before and we can see what happened in the geological evidence. A good presentation of that evidence is in Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren.

nonbel 8y ago
I mean something like this. It seems like just one person needs to do it, then it could be boilerplate since I see similar posts all over the place: > "The great strides we're making in access to food and clean water and medical care" -- What evidence is there for great strides being made? -- Regarding medical "care", there is an implication that care is a good thing. How well is this "care" translating to health, rather than putting people on more pills and causing an obesity crisis? > "[Improved access to food, clean water, and medical care] won't stop unchecked global warming from devastating human civilization. -- Why couldn't it? I have often heard the argument that improved standard of living leads to lower birthrates. > "It's not just a matter of rising sea levels" -- What evidence is there for rising sea levels? I have heard they were rising before humans started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. > "if things continue apace, -- Why should we expect climate change to continue apace? Looking at the vostok ice core data it looks like there is some negative feedback that leads to a glacial period once it gets too hot. In fact it looks like we are due for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Pe... -- There is also the grand solar minimum we may be due for as well... > "large parts of the equator will be too hot for humans to survive" -- Needs source: If humans can find ways to survive in antarctica, submarines, and outer space I doubt this true. > "By the end of this century, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees will be seeking sanctuary somewhere, anywhere." -- Why, exactly? Are they incapable of planning ahead or building air conditioned structures? Does this assume some sort of energy crisis?